Beige Food Two
Nutrition
The moral hierarchy of food from raw to junk is culturally constructed. Conflating some kinds of food with supporting health and other types of food with undermining health is an utter fabrication extracted from a plethora of so-called scientific studies where the data and results never support the conclusions confidently laid out.
The definition of “nutritious” is variously listed as “efficient as food” [Oxford Dictionary], and “containing many of the substances necessary for life and growth.” [Cambridge Dictionary]. It will come as a shock to many that ultra-processed foods fit the definition of nutritious. In fact, in many cases it might be the most nutritious option a person can choose.
In this article I want to delve into the primary advantage of consuming ultra-processed foods (sometimes called junk food or non-food). Most medical treatment teams are unaware that their understanding of nutrition is based on cultural, and not scientific, opinions. They are utterly convinced that their belief system of nutrition is not a belief system but rather an objective knowledge base extracted from rigorous scientific trials over the past one hundred to one hundred and fifty years. The chasm between how ultra-processed foods have been culturally demonized and the actual way in which ultra-processed foods deliver higher net energy to the living system when compared to processed (cooked/pickled/dried etc.) or raw foods is vast and complicates your ability to navigate your recovery when working with your medical team.
Do Mega Food Companies Make Ultra-processed Foods Addictive?
No. But we do need to discuss this in a bit more detail. First of all, we need to look at whether food addiction itself is a valid concept. In fact, is addiction (to anything) a valid concept?
I highly recommend reading the following Conceptualizing Addiction: How useful is the construct? in its entirety if you can find the time.
The dominant model used to frame addiction today is the medical one: “an inescapable biological source for addiction… reduc[ing] human subjects to impersonal objects of clinical practice. The medicalisation of addiction has not, in fact, been wholly successful because while the medical profession claims with some certainly that it is able to diagnose addiction, [yet] recovery continues to depend on the motivation and will of the patient, unlike the majority of medical conditions.” [1]
There are substances where the way in which they attach to receptors in the brain can lead to tolerance of that substance over time— meaning you would need more of the substance as time progresses to achieve the same level of experience (be that pain relief, an altered mental state, etc.). Food, including ultra-processed foods, do not generate tolerance.
That there are neurotransmitters released when consuming palatable foods (they can be raw, processed or ultra-processed) is a biological adaptation for survival and the presence of those neurotransmitters does not denote addiction (however you might wish to define it within a medical, or any other, framing).
Or maybe addiction is psychological? “Closely allied to the biological construct of addiction, its psychological counterpart also focuses on internalised processes but emphasises the person - behaviour - environment interaction as the central concern.” [2]
And problematically, this construct does not hold up under scrutiny either:
“The Khantzian model of self medication (1997) for example asserts that addiction is engaged in, in an attempt to self-medicate suffering, to regulate lives and remedy negative affect. This model perhaps is best able to explain why some individuals are able to maintain a recreational form of substance use while others progress to addiction. While the relationship between negative affect and addiction is quite strong…the direction of this relationship remains unclear. For negative emotional states to be considered a cause of addiction they should precede the onset of addictive behaviour. However, Walters (1995) in his review of both prospective and intervention studies concludes that negative affect is more likely to be a consequence rather than a cause of addictive behaviour.”
Negative affect (emotions) does not precede the onset of addictive behaviour and therefore it has no causal relationship to the onset of what we call addiction. Nor does the advent of negative physical symptoms or emotions, in the absence of a substance, necessarily denote addiction (something that the medical model often highlights as a way to identify addictive substances).
Do mega corporations in all industries wish to manipulate you to purchase more of their product or service to increase profits? Yes. That’s capitalism. And would they wish to include substances in products that would trigger unpleasant side effects were you to attempt to stop consuming the product? Also, yes.
Let me bore you with a little anecdote for a moment: you all know I have migraines. They are almost non-existent these days thankfully, but during peak perimenopause they were right on the edge of disabling. But migraineurs have interesting experiences with just regular over the counter supplements and foods that give us insight into “withdrawal symptoms” in the absence of any dependence or addiction. If I stop taking a digestive enzyme it can trigger five or six days of morning migraines until my body readjusts. Not pleasant for sure, but it doesn’t compel me to go back to taking the supplement just because I have to navigate a week or so of migraines.
In other words, negative side effects on withdrawal may be something corporations would love to include but it wouldn’t necessarily result in more use of their product. Agency matters.
If you believe you’re addicted to ultra-processed foods, then this is predominantly a cultural shorthand for explaining your experience to others in a way that reinforces social ingroup validity. In saying that, I am not belittling or dismissing how distressing it might be for anyone who wants to stop eating ultra-processed foods and yet finds themselves incapable of doing so.
What I hope to do next is to offer up some rationale for when we prefer to consume ultra-processed foods over processed or raw foods that has nothing to do with “lack of willpower” or “absent moral fortitude”.
Next section available November 7.
Image in preview outline: Flickr.com Rafael Edward
Clark, Marilyn. "Conceptualising addiction: How useful is the construct?." (2011).
ibid.
ibid.
